Dan Rather Has Nothing To Lose

On Wednesday, former CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather filed a $70-million lawsuit against the network where he spent 44 years, its parent company, Viacom, and his former bosses Les Moonves, Andrew Heyward and Sumner Redstone. Rather alleges "egregious conduct" constituting "breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, prima facie tort, tortious interference with contract and interference with prospective economic advantage, that have cost his significant financial loss and seriously damaged his reputation" in a 32-page complaint that by now most media-watchers have eagerly gobbled up.

The response seemed near-universal: "WHY?" I say near-universal because my response was, "Oh, here it is."

It seemed — and seems — perfectly natural to me for Rather to have sued CBS. Look at where he is now, compared to where he would have been but for the National Guard story (aka "Memogate" — and, aka, "Rathergate"). He would have been an esteemed anchor emeritus, a wise and learned voice on matters of national importance, an expert to be called on during elections and crises and times of national need, an authority to be brought out for the really big stories, the kind that you know are big because, hell, look, they brought out Dan Rather! Or maybe, despite plans for an amicable handover in March 2006 on his 25th-anniversary (complaint, pg. 11) he wouldn't be an emeritus at all; after all, CBS had no succession plan in place and at the time the piece aired on September 8, 2004, the world of network news was about to be thrown into a tizzy. Who knows. If not for that report, Rather might still be anchor today — the dean of American anchors, the ultimate guy in the chair — dare we say, the Voice of God.

Instead, three years after the airing of that story and just over a year since his time at CBS sputtered to an end, Dan Rather is none of those things. He is an anchor for HDNet, with an audience a fraction of what he used to command (make that a really, really small fraction). Last November, on election night, he commented for The Daily Show. Funny, but it was over in a blink. And it ain't CBS (it ain't even CNN). Rather took that job at HDNet in what appeared to be high hopes and great enthusiasm, with all sorts of you-can't-knock-me-down bravado, shilling for it on Letterman and the like, proselytizing for this exciting new era in TV viewing, thrilled to be joining forces with a maverick like Mark Cuban, a maverick himself, a pioneer really, forging a brave new path in reporting just like he always did, on the goddamned story just like he always was.

That's how it seemed, anyway. Hopeful and optimistic, and now...what? He's on HDNet. Big whoop. Meanwhile, the top dog who yanked the carpet out from under him — Les Moonves — went and wrote a giant check for Katie Couric and now look at his precious newscast: Tanking in the ratings, tarted up and dumbed down. I don't know about any of you, but that would drive me freaking nuts, and I haven't spent a quarter-century having a love affair with the red light of the camera.

So for those who wonder "why now?" to me that makes sense. Wednesday night on NBC Nightly News, Scott Libin of the Poynter Institute, wondered "Why now? What's new about this - what will we learn that we didn't already know?" Well, to paraphrase Dr. Frank N. Furter to Janet Weiss, he didn't file this lawsuit for you. Jeff Bercovici declared "This suit should have been filed three years ago or not at all" which is all well and good to sweepingly declare, except it doesn't take into account the reality of the situation, which is that things obviously looked and felt different at that time, and hindsight is 20/20. (Also: CBS News' response that the "complaints are old news" doesn't really speak to ye olde Statute of Limitations).

Why now? Who knows — maybe enough time has passed, maybe he saw how Imus did and figured he had a good shot, maybe he planned it deliberately to happen just in time for the News & Documentary Emmys on Monday — at which he just happens to be a presenter. So, incidentally, is Katie Couric.

Is it rational? Opinion seems to be...no. Not so much, to revive the single worst mistake you ever made and try to explain it by saying that it wasn't really yours. Whoever counseled him on that strategy was an idiot — if he had thrown his lot in with the other fired staffers, admitting responsibility but not all the responsibility, seeing as Heyward had signed off on the piece and Moonves had all but exculpated Heyward. The scapegoat charge might have rung more true if others below Rather — the guy who said those words on screen — had not been fired while Rather kept his job.

But that doesn't mean that Rather doesn't have a point — lots of them. He was buried at 60 Minutes. His contract did stipulate airtime, promotion and attention. The system failed, not just him (cf. Heyward's culpability above, per David Blum and Jay Rosen). I raise this as a point of legality — the suit is not without merit, even if the part about Rather not being responsible for what he innocently didn't know is hooey. That part is journalistic hooey; here, it just doesn't help his case, which otherwise seems prima facie okay regarding breach of contract and damage to his reputation.

Which is why CBS will settle — that and to avoid discovery. Just as Dan Rather is crazy to want to refocus on this terrible episode, CBS is smart enough to avoid it. The last thing they need is an investigation into the shoddy editorial practices that went into this report — who needs that dragged through the public square again? (Especially when another anchor recently copped to not being responsible for the words under her byline.) Rather may dream of the spoils of discovery, but that's the last thing CBS wants. It won't be $70 million — $20 compensatory, $50 punitive! — , but it'll be something, and maybe that will be enough vindication. It's not for the money — he'll donate that, I'm sure, as pledged — but for the acknowledgment that it wasn't just his fault. At the very least, he's dragging Moonves and Heyward through the mud here, too (and who knows, maybe setting a precedent for Katie Couric to eventually follow, making Moonves pay for that "Nope. I really don't").

But the battle here isn't for money, it's for Rather's reputation, and his legacy — both of which were forever compromised on that day in September 2004 and which have been eroding ever since. To me, this lawsuit seems like an all-or-nothing bid to get it back. To some, that might say courage. To others, it might say crazy. To Dan Rather, it might just seem like the last chance he's got.

Comments

[drblack]

The document itself may have been retyped but the info in it was 100% correct.
Bush went AWOL...it is a fact.
Rather's story did not get people killed and waste money. How is it that so many other talking heads who championed the IRAQ war are still in the biz?
Rather was scapegoated and only a bone head neoCON would think otherwise.

[GenericBlogger]

Having read some of the threads on Dan Rather, I noticed that his 1988 scuffle with George H. W. Bush, Dubya's father, hasn't been mentioned. Even Rather's contemporaries agreed that he went too far in the interview with Dubya's father.

Those who feel Dan Rather was pursuing only the truth should note that he was also influenced by his bias.

[GenericBlogger]

It's sad to see the traditional media characterized by Cronkite, Chancellor, Brinkley, Jennings, etc. fade into media history.

However, I am not sympathetic towards Rather. More than the others, he took chances, risks, stirred the pot, and created controversies. Some of his risks paid off, some didn't. The Dubya/Texas National Guard story was a risk that didn't. He upset enough viewers to lose ratings and land in third place among the three main networks since the 90s. Trusting Rather became a challenge for me.

It's hard to say what would have transpired if the Texas National Guard story was reported in 2000. Back then the public was anti liberal and anti progressive, war wasn't in the horizon. Discrepancies in Dubya's questionable National Guard career might have been dismissed as irrelevant and part of political mud slinging. That story might have tipped to balance to Al Gore's favor or might have ended Rather's career.

Rather may be suing CBS now because the CBS cash register opened to Imus but I think he is taking advantage of the anti conservative wave of public sentiment that didn't exist in 2004 to the degree it does now.

I am not pro CBS but CBS didn't capitulate his career. He should count his blessings. He was well paid and the old (pre Moonves) CBS news division supported him when they could have let him go. He managed to work to his early 70s when he didn't have to, when many people were laid off and forced into early retirement.

Rather may be compensated for unmet contractual obligations but he alone is responsible for his reputation, no one else.

[ConradGaarder]

Since long before this too-torqued nut retorted "No, Mr. President, are you?", which puzzled Nixon and the rest of us, since Nixon had already been reelected, but was recounted ever after as one of his big moments, Dan Rather has been gunning for the GOP.

But here's' the real problem with "Memogate". We all remember, of course, that he pulled this stunt a little over a month before the 2004 election. He insists that even if the memos were false ("That's never been proven", Larry) the story behind the memos was in all important respects true.

Well, hello, Dan! Everybody, and that includes all the people who voted for him, knew perfectly well that George W. Bush ducked Vietnam by joining the National Guard, and knew perfectly well that strings were pulled so that he could get into the Texas Air National Guard, and knew perfectly well, or if they didn't know, would not have doubted for a minute that being George W. Bush, after he learned to fly the jet, and after doing the Guard thing for a couple of years, he decided he was bored with it and would rather get involved in some (was it Winton Blount's)electoral campaign in Alabama.

What made this news, Dan?

[DasBoot]

ConradGaarder: I think you are missing the point here. First of all, I doubt that even a large minority of voters had more than an inkling about the exact story of Bush's Texas Air National Guard "service".

Second, the case was not about whether Bush took advantage of his family connections to escape service in Vietnam. I suppose that was indeed something most people figured, and sadly, that's not an uncommon story. The rich and powerful take care of their own. Fine.

But third, the question in 1972/1973 was: Did Bush fail to show up for medical exams because he was so high on booze (and you know what else) that he certainly would have failed? Countless eyewitnesses at the time attested to the fact that he was drifting and looked like he was in serious trouble. And most importantly, were official documents forged or destroyed to cover up this fact?

Now that would be in a different category. The last charge could not be proven, but that does not answer the other question: why didn't he show up? Just out of boredom? Bush was already granted a release from service a year ahead of time in order to attend Harvard Business School.

And why on earth does Bush not open up his military documents stored on microfilm?

Dan Rather's lawsuit, whatever other merit it may or may not have, deserves applause for bring up again this much neglected story of W.'s irresponsibility and disregard for service.

[GenericBlogger]

DasBoot,

We already know about his irresponsible nature and his outlook on our military. The proof is in the pudding as they say.

I am all for setting the record straight but it's too late at this point to impact the current administration.

The only benefit now is ensuring history will more accurately chronicle Dubya's military service.

[QueenCeleste]

Well, best of luck to him. He DID get a raw deal and I imagine he's thinking of his legacy. He should have learned from Walter Cronkite's shabby treatment at the hands of CBS!

[veracity]

Dan Rather was the best lead anchor of the bunch- between Brokaw, Jennings, etc... BUT!

Dan, you should have run the "Bush AWOL from Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam war" story IN THE SUMMER OF 2000 - when Bush was a relatively unknown governor of Texas - instead of 2001, when he was the popular president that "you would like to have a beer with, 'cause he is such a straight shooter."

Rather's other mistake was going after the complex story of then Lt. Bush's refusal to take a flight physical exam as ordered (despite Bush's taking advantage of millions of dollars of expensive jet fighter flight training), and how the chain of command reacted to that refusal. (An instant war-time court-martial for most men or officers in uniform.) Instead, Rather should have focused on the EASY story: That Lt. Bush was assigned to an Alabama Air National Guard base (a make-work assignment - the base had no aircraft), and that HE NEVER REPORTED FOR DUTY.





(Specifically, then Lt. George W. Bush refused to take a Air Force flight-physical exam as ordered even after receiving a million dollars in jet fighter flight training during the Vietnam war ; and to avoid the huge scandal of court-martialing the son of an influential Texas congressman and oilman (and future RNC Chair, CIA director, VP, and President George H.W. Bush, Sr.), Lt. Bush was unceremoniously shipped out of Texas to an Alabama ANG base that had no aircraft - a make-work, probation type of assignment - where he never showed up. In real estate the saying is "location, location, location." In the news media industry, it is timing, timing, timing, and an accurate, hard-hitting story which grabs headlines and makes a buzz. Rather and CBS had a chance - a good chance - to grab those headlines and make that buzz in 2000. They frittered that opportunity away, and now they both have egg on their faces.

[hsk01945]

What really important about the story is a question that begs to be answered, namely, what did Bush do during 1972-73? Should be have been disciplined for shirking his duty? Where was he since it appears that he failed to report as required? What about the Secretary that said although she can't vouch for the authenticity of the documents - that the story is true? And, why won't the government release copies of all microfilm records of Bush's military service? Bush is a slacker, a liar, and a coward. Maybe the real truth will be revealed in court. Power to the people!

[ThinkingPerson]

This lawsuit will reveal for certain that the CBS bigwigs were in bed with White House in a effort to squash the Abu Ghraib report eventually done on 60 Minutes II.

This from the body of the suit:

39. Despite the story's importance, and because of the obvious negative impact the story would have on the Bush administration with which Viacom and CBS wished to curry favor, CBS management attempted to bury it. As a general rule, senior executives of CBS News do not take a hands-on role in the editing and vetting of a story. However, CBS News President Andrew Heyward and Senior Vice President Betsy West were involved intimately in the editing and vetting process of the Abu Ghraib story. However, for weeks, they refused to grant permission to air the story, continuously insisting that it lacked sufficient substantiation. As Mr. Rather and Ms. Mapes provided each requested verification, Mr. Heyward and Ms. West continued to "raise the goalposts," insisting on additional substantiation.

40. Even after obtaining nearly a dozen, now notorious, photographs, which made it impossible to deny the accuracy of the story, Mr. Heyward and Ms. West continued to delay the story for an additional three weeks. This delay was, in part, occasioned by acceding to pressures brought to bear by government officials urging CBS to drop the story or at least delay it. As a part of that pressure, Mr. Rather received a personal telephone call from General Richard B. Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, urging him to delay the story.

41. Only after it became apparent that, due to the delay, sources were talking to other news organizations and that CBS would be "scooped," Mr. Heyward and Ms. West approved the airing of the story for April 28, 2004. Even then, CBS imposed the unusual restrictions that the story would be aired only once, that it would not be preceded by on-air promotion, and that it would not be referenced on the CBS Evening News.

[Straif]

If you watched his interview with Cavuto you would see Dan actually make the exact opposite claim (it's on Youtube somewhere if you look for it).

He claims that the head of the News division was actually pushing for the story to go ahead and that it was Viacom president Sumner Redstone who wanted it stopped, though he was somehow incommunicado at the time so couldn't prevent them from going forward.

It's just amazing how no two stories of how this was not Dan's fault are ever the same, especially when the source is Dan himself.

[truthyguy]

The sad part is that the rest of the media did not come to his rescue at the time when they knew (or should have known) after the Friday night dump of documents connected with the story that the one thing that sunk Rather - the typewriter - was in fact in existence when the memo was written as evidenced by the document promoting AWOL Bush to 1st Lt.

It is never too late and I hope he gets every last dime and then some. Could not happen to a more deserving bunch of assholes. Hey, but CBS has that great newsperson Couric now. Right Les?!

[Straif]

Yet no one has been able to come up with any typewriter, either basic or the most customized piece of machinery known to man at the time, that comes close to matching the documents in the same way the default settings of Word do. There is even a $50,000 prize out for anyone who can use authentic era machinery to produce an exact replica of the 'AWOL' document.

Only one quasi-expert that I am aware of even still puts forward the theory that such a word processor/typewriter even exists but his paper on the subject was berated by actual document experts as displaying "a remarkable amount of poor scientific methodology" that in "no way supports hypothesis"

And in fact the other documents have clear distinctions that set them apart from the AWOL forgery. The superscript "th" being one prominent example. Word, by default uses a smaller font when superscripting ordinal abbreviations, most typewriters of the era, including the ones used for the other documents, do not. Even the superscripting itself was merely performed by rolling the page manually so is not consistent on a typewritten page.

The proof you're referring to (I'm assuming because you are very light on actual details) was that in 1 document in the hundreds reviewed from the base, a proportionally spaced font was used. The problem being it was not the same font used in the AWOL document, nor did that memo shared any of the other unique characteristics of the Killian note.

So, if any true journalist had looked at your 'evidence' they would have come to the same conclusion of every other nonpartisan blinded person, the smoking gun document was typed using a modern day computer and not a 1972 era typewriter. The fact the source is openly anti-Bush as well as very shifty in explaining the whereabouts of the originals would, once again, make most journalists stay away from this story like it had the plague.

[The Collinbrandt]

All who take on the Bush absolute power machine, or are perceived to know too much, end up threatened, destroyed, jailed or dead. As Fox Mulder said, "The truth is out there".

[Hoelder]

I always regarded Dan Rather as a journalist with highest integrity and standards. CBS bowed to mediocrity and chose to be complicit with the lies of Bush and his cronies. They have betrayed their audience, the solemn oath to unveil the truth without party line and fail and should be exposed and the truth about the corrupting influence of this White House needs to be exposed.

[dango]

Rachel also recently defended the execrable, BushCo water carrier Elizabeth Hasselbeck.

[dapaul]

I have noticed that since Sklar took on the job at Huffington Post, the site has become more right-wing. All her columns have a definite neo-con twist to them, and comments are ruthlessly censored. Can we petition Arianna directly to stop letting this site become another neo-con mouthpiece?

[ParadiseDiva]

I don't know about the neo-con angle, but I've found Ms Sklar's writings of late to be petty, gossipy and ill-informed, to say the least...

It wasn't always that way...

[Scribe57]

So, once again, someone takes on big corporate media, and once again, that person is the subject of a snarky Sklar column.

Couple of months ago, it was Michael Moore, who had the nerve to get upset when CNN flat out lied about his movie.

Now, it's Rather, who has the gall to suggest that corporate media steppin' and fetchin' to whatever complaint the government might have is a bigger issue than making one mistake on one story, a story which, despite the error in question, was at its heart true. Bush dodged the draft. Period.

With a resume like she is currently building, Sklar's move to the big time is all but certain. Don't trash the media, but by all means, trash anyone who does.

[dapaul]

Absolutely right, Scribe57. Taking on George Bush was the biggest mistake of his career? No wonder the MSM has no credibility any more. Even after the debacle of the Iraq war and the state this country is in, the MSM still tries to protect Bush and his neo-con cronies.

[dango]

What's with-all the-damn dashes?

[DaveMacaray]

dango: Good point about the dashes. Took the words--figuratively--right out of my mouth.